Was Hugo Chavez Assassinated?

In the wake of Venezuelan President HugoChavez’s death at 58 years of age from cancer,many are wondering if he was actuallyassassinated. Was his disease contracted through natural causes, or was he deliberatelyinfected with a carcinogenic agent by thosewho wanted him out of the way?

Acting President Nicolas Maduro thinks so. In his press conference two hours after Chavez was pronounceddead, Maduro shocked the world withthese words: “We have absolutely no doubt, and the right moment in history will come, when a scientificcommission can investigate and prove that this disease was used to attack Commander Chavez. Hepublicly said as much, and we have no doubt thatwas the case. We think that the historical enemiesof our homeland found the way to harm the health ofour commander.”

A little over a year ago, Chavez went on Venezuelannational radio and said: “I don’t know but . . . itis very odd that we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was a candidate, me, going intoan election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina.. . . It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to someleaders in Latin America. It’s at the very least strange, very strange.”

He was referring to Paraguay’s President FernandoLugo, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff,former Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silvaand Argentine President Cristina Kirchner. These are Latin America’s top anti-globalist leaders. All ofthem contracted cancer around the same time.

Although critics dismiss these allegations as unfounded,the use of cancer as an assassination toolis well-documented. Edward Haslam’s book Dr.Mary’s Monkey describes how David Ferrie, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset connected to the JFK assassination conspiracy,had experimented extensively with cancer-causing agents for the CIA in the early 1960s inorder to give Fidel Castro cancer.

Jack Ruby—another key JFK conspiracy figure—was not as lucky and died in prison of a suddenand mysterious cancer before he could testifyin court in a new trial.

Other world leaders have also died of rapid andmysterious cancers. It was proven in 2011 by Swissscientists that Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat’sdeath from cancer in 2004 was brought about by Polonium-210, the radioactive isotope first madewell known when it was used to kill KGB agentAlexander Litvinenko in 2007. Unlike other radioactive substances, polonium does not emitgamma rays, but alpha particles, making it hard todetect. It only takes a dose of polonium the size of a speck of pepper to be lethal.

Michael Karpin’s book The Bomb in the Basementdescribes how Israel found out about poloniumin 1957 when radioactive material in preparationfor Israel’s nuclear program leaked and several scientists died of cancer. This was kept secretas research was conducted to turn the radioactivepolonium into an assassination weapon. It is believed that Ariel Sharon used this to kill his archenemyArafat in 2004.

In his 2006 speech before the United Nations, Chavez referredto George W. Bush as “el Diablo,” because heclaimed Bush tried to have him killed.

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson also openly called for Chavez’s assassination.

Chavez himself had publicly said that Israeli terrorists from the Mossad were trying to assassinatehim because of his political views.

Could it be that the Mossad finally succeeded?Acting president Maduro is determined to find out.

A bitter public clash between Maduro and Rodonski has escalated since Chavez died and willonly get worse as elections are scheduled for April14 with the two men running for president. Maduro, as Chavez’s officially selected successor, has a strong lead at the moment.

Peter Papaherakles, a U.S. citizen since 1986, was born in Greece. He is AFP’s outreach director. If you would like to see AFP speakers at your rally, contact Pete at 202-544-5977.

Chavez Fought the New World Order

• Despite mainstream media smears, Hugo Chavez was a real nationalist

By Michael Collins Piper

Hugo Chavez, the colorful Venezuelanstrongman, a popular figure throughoutLatin America, is dead. Althoughthe controlled media contrived to mislead Americans into perceiving Chavezas “anti-American,” the truth is that the bombasticSouth American icon was actually a forthright nationalistcritic of the internationalist and imperialist forces often referred to as the New World Order (NWO).

Like many who oppose the privately-owned FederalReserve money monopoly which operates unconstitutionallyon American soil, Chavez was acritic of rampant global super-capitalism, which he called “the demon.”

There is no question Chavez knew the source ofhis high-powered opposition. In 2000, announcing atrip to Iraq, Chavez taunted his critics, remarking:“Imagine what the Pharisees will say when they see me with Saddam Hussein.” On another occasion heasserted: “The world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people thatcrucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth ofthe world.”

All of this is something of which even otherwisewell-informed American patriots may be unaware.

Should there be any doubt Chavez was perceivedas a roadblock in the way of the NWO,consider the warnings issued by David Rothkopf,frontman at Kissinger Associates, the secretive pressure group of Henry Kissinger, one of the foremostadvocates of the NWO.

In Superclass: The Global Power Elite and theWorld They Are Making—which acknowledges theinfluence of such NWO institutions asBilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations—Rothkopf spoke approvinglyof what he called the new global “superclass”(that is, the NWO elite) and said that, in his words, the “political fault line” for the 21st centuryis the battle of “Globalists vs. Nationalists,” that an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” stoodopposed to the “superclass.” He wrote:

At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristicsand attitudes though they come from widely differentregions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the UnitedStates, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . .In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reactingto it much as they were trained to react tosuch incursions. . . . Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist,or anti-neo-imperialist vs. pro-American globalization, the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.

Specifically naming three figures among that“small group of leaders” challenging the NWO as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chavez, Rothkopf candidly confirmed the primary underlying conflictin our world today is—as it has always been—the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in the face of the concerted driveby cosmopolitan internationalists to erect a global imperium. Rothkopf’s admissions were a clear signthe NWO schemers recognized seriousforces were aligning against them.

Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Societyparroted the NWO crowd and thewar-mongering pro-Israel neoconservatives by attacking nationalists such as Ahmadinejad, Putin andChavez.

Considering all of this—quite naturally—from the time Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in1999, the tightly-knit interlocking network of Rothschild dynasty-linked plutocratic families and FederalReserve-connected financial interests whodominate the American military-industrial-mediacomplex never spared any fervor in denouncing Chavez at any opportunity.

That international Zionism and the interwovenforces of the NWO were disturbed aboutChavez was at first largely kept under wraps. Zionisthatred of Chavez was confined to small-circulation—but nonetheless influential—journals read almost exclusivelyby supporters of Israel and in elitist circles.

For propaganda purposes designed to manipulate more broad-ranging concerns of freedom-lovingAmericans, the media regularly stoked up the themeChavez was a “socialist” or a “communist” under the thumb of Fidel Castro.

Even The New York Review of Books admitted on October 6, 2005 that “a great many businessmen haveprospered under [Chavez’s] rule, and he has made it clear he sees a significant role for the private sectorand, most particularly, for foreign investment.” SoChavez was no “communist.”

In truth, Chavez modeled himself after Simon Bolivar—liberator of the Andean colonies from theSpanish crown—who, in even traditional Americanhistory texts, was called “the George Washington of South America.”

The simmering secret war against Chavez took a new turn when, on the August 22, 2005 broadcast of his“700 Club,” pro-Israel television evangelist PatRobertson—suggesting Chavez was a new communist threat—openly called for the United States toassassinate Chavez, then emerging as a forcefulcritic of the global warmongering of the George W. Bush administration.

Most Americans would have never heard of Robertson’s provocation had it not been for the bigmedia loudly publicizing the evangelist’s remarks.As such, Chavez and his supporters correctly saw Robertson’s outburst as part of a carefully-craftedhigh-level scheme to direct American popular ireagainst Chavez and set the stage for military actionagainst him.

In fact, the call for killing Chavez came just daysafter the Bush administration’s foremost voice ofsupport in the media—the neoconservative WeeklyStandard—slammed Chavez claiming he was “a threat to more than just his own people,” a danger tothe tiny but wealthy Jewish population in Venezuela, bemoaning the fact Venezuelan state television speculatedIsrael’s intelligence service, the Mossad, mayhave been linked to the assassination of a local official in Venezuela.

Asserting “hostility to Jews” was “one of the hallmarksof the Venezuelan government,” the Standardcited a State Department “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” that purported to document, in the Standard’swords, “how openly anti-Semitic the Venezuelangovernment now is.”

Of particular concern was that one of Chavez’s closest advisors, the late Norberto Ceresole, was “infamous”for, they said, “conspiracy theories aboutJewish plans to control the planet” and that Ceresole was a “holocaust denier”—that is, he questioned officialaccounts of World War II history, a “crime” punishable by imprisonment in many Western nations calling themselves “democracies,” and which,at the same time, hypocritically accused Chavez ofsuppressing freedom of expression in Venezuela.

Within a short time, though, Jewish opposition to Chavez went public in a big way. On February 5, 2008—in a commentary in The Washington Post (a newspaper that most definitely directs opinion amongmovers and shakers in the nation’s capital)—AbeFoxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, launched a full-force attack onChavez. Headlined “Chavez’s Anti-Semitism,” Foxman’sinflammatory broadside alleged a “rising wave of anti-Semitism” in Venezuela traceable to Chavez.

Foxman charged Venezuelan officials and mediawere “rehashing the ancient canard about Jewishcontrol, vilifying Jews and Israel as agents of imperialism, and adopting anti-Semitic stereotypes aboutJewish financial influence.” Foxman also expressedconcern Chavez was friendly to Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Syrian President al-Assad, among others the ADLcalled “a verifiable threat to Israel and world Jewry.”

Although Chavez is gone, other leaders in South America and worldwide—with the support of manygood Americans—still carry on his fight against theNWO.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.